I just believe there is a will in the universe, a will that prefers existance over nothingness. I obey this will...

Well again, it's a matter of the subject object paradigm that comes with the modernist paradigm. Objectively you can say that the universe didnt exist for a billion years but subjectively you cant. Subjectively the universe didnt start until you did and it will end when you do. Objectivity is mostly a social contract that is sustained between subjects so we can work together, civilization can flourish or at least maintain itself, so we can go to sleep at night. But objectivity isnt """real""" per se. So called "Objective knowledge" is inaccessible to any subjective mind for the simple reason that you cant read my mind or anyone else's mind or know what a rock """is""". This is the problem that probably every notable modern writer in tackles with. Well okay i cant make that broad a sweep but at least joyce does, and faulkner does. The idea is that if we think like this in a clearly demarcated subject-object way of course things are going to look pessimistic because we have no way of reaching the "other". All I'm trying to say is that there must be another way of looking at this. Of course I'm not going to say it in so many words because what do I know I'm just some guy on 4 chan writing this at 1 am but i can point you to some literature if you want, if you dont thats fine too

Passage to Modernity by Louis Dupre
The quadruple object by Graham Harman
Cartesian Meditations by Husserl

And anyway I apologize if my words seemed meaningless to you.

yikes

On what basis do you believe this?

absolutely based

you're either a brainlet or a mega-autist if you can't grasp entry level concepts like non-duality

Death is meaningless.

Everything is meaningless. WE create meaning as conscious subjects. Since death is the dissapearence of our conscious self, it is of utter importance and meaning to us, bearing a heavy psychological impact (although mostly unconscious) since birth and throughout every action and thought we produce. You absolute moron.

Yes. No. Maybe.

>Everything is meaningless. WE create meaning as conscious subjects.
Everything is a broad subject, as it includes all potential being in it. Including your 'created meaning' - which is to say, perceived meaning. As in, the same way you perceive "objective reality" you'll perceive an objective moral (hierarchy of being) law which you embody and betray time and time again, as it is a part of you.

Among the first life, it is possible that NPC life existed; to say that they perceived nothing, had no desires, had no will and had no goals. Such life was the accident life. It perished the moment the automatic replication features stopped receiving sustenance - automatically.
The manual life, the driven life, the willful life and the desired life began with hunger. There was a huge selection pressure to connect to the real phenomenon of hunger, or in other words, to manufacture hunger. Later on evolution would diverge enough to give us the gifts of fear, lust, and later still, of justice, fairness, mercy, duty, love. Though love may have been there since the beginning, poorly understood.
Experience exists to validate existence, and it actively does so. An autistic world without God is meaningless as it is not perceived.

There's a will in the Universe, which prefers nothingness above all. Her name is Entropy. Hers is the inevitability and silence, and breakdown of all things organized. As living things hump each other is a senseless comedy of replication, she patiently pulverizes the existence one decayed atom at a time. It cannot be stopped, cannot be reversed, cannot be controlled.

This is just such an arrogant way of thinking to me
Who are you to say that everything is meaningless until we create meaning?
I think you really have to be full of yourself to see the world this way

>ctrl+F "Schopenhauer"
>0 results
This board is fucking dead.

Attached: schopenhauer.jpg (217x300, 7K)

Of course the meaning I create is "objevtively" meaningless, that's the point. There would be no meaning unless there's a subject that creates it the same way there would be no perception unless there's a subject that perceives.

To put it into another light, Gödel proved that axioms are the necessary starting point of any logical deductive system (being it mathematical or ethical).

We are fully aware that said axiom is undeniable and unfalsifiable because we CHOOSE to (because we intuitively feel it so, or because we will it), but this circumstance does not make it an ounce less valuable. Furthermore, being aware of said lack of inherent meaning in itself is what makes it valuable. And we shall find contradictions in our system (be it mathematical or ethical) and it is still usefull in understanding and transforming our environment.

Why is it arrogant? Should there be no counscious beings in the universe, would there still be meaning in it? And who determines said meaning or has told you which one it is?

Meaning is a construct of the mind, an evolutionary tool, even (if you want to go full postivist [not my case]). No subject implies no meaning, therefore we are the ones creating it.

We may understand, more or less, how the universe works (biology, chemistry, physics) but this in no way determines a "meaning" to it all. Understanding how something functions does not mean understsnding it's meaning, since meaning implies intention, and intention comes from a subject.

It is undeniable unless you have a teleological or theist Weltanschauung, in which case, it is YOU who has created said end/meaning/goal/God and are trying to pass it as an Absolute that guides everything and everyone.

I am in no way imposing my own meaning onto my fellowmen. Can you say the same, user?